Hitchkok wrote:i'm offering $50 right now, to anyone willing to sign off all of his earthly belongings to me - effective june 2013.anyone writing 2012 is the end of the world. put your money where your keyboard is.

you are pathetic...

whoops, did i say that out-loud?!?!

Wow, i think that's probably the most logically coherent argument you've spewed yet.hey, you'll might even make it to a 7 year old mental capacity yet!

there is no useless knowledge, there is only knowledge we don't know how to use

teal'c wrote:Jesus maybe Hitch should be ombudsman he seems to be the only one with brains around here

GhostyGoo wrote:Capitalism is responsible for the death of humanity through a complete and utter destruction of ethical conduct, you DO know this, right?
Thanks to capitalism, when your doctor tells you you require a kidney transplant to survive, you no longer can be certain if you actually need a kidney transplant or your doctor simply needs a new speedboat. Nice.

Kit-Fox wrote:And todays astronomers arent 're-discovering' anything, they are infact proving or disproving something which is already known. Again something that should be taught at primary schools - The Scientific Process.

in a sense there are many things we are rediscovering, things our ancient forefathers were very much aware of. for a few hundred years it was believed the earth was the centre of the universe and the sun revolved around the earth, then it was believed the sun was the centre of the universe, all the while the earth was flat. the ancients knew not only that the world was round, but they also knew the size of the world, they also knew the layout of the land underneath the ice of Antarctica, something not discovered till the 50's. that's just a couple of examples of rediscovery.

as far as mainstream recorded history goes, its a crock of crap, everything we are taught at school about the historical record is wrong, including religion from a historical POV...

teal'c wrote:Jesus maybe Hitch should be ombudsman he seems to be the only one with brains around here

GhostyGoo wrote:Capitalism is responsible for the death of humanity through a complete and utter destruction of ethical conduct, you DO know this, right?
Thanks to capitalism, when your doctor tells you you require a kidney transplant to survive, you no longer can be certain if you actually need a kidney transplant or your doctor simply needs a new speedboat. Nice.

buck wrote:They wouldnt have had the capacity to understand time is infinate and nor would they have the number skillz!

Sorry Buck, but what a ridiculous thing to say/assume.

Id love to hear your arguement for the post industrial, Post non cannibal dieted, hell, post still seeing the sun as some sort of deity, Civilisations maths being comprehenseable to that of our own or even anywhere near, our standard.

Go on, Im waiting!

this is what we call a "Genetics fallacy", where facts regarding the genesis of an argument, which are not relevent to the argument itself are used to discredit the argument.in this case, the facts are the bolded part, the argument is the Mayan calender and math, and the genesis is the Mayan.in simple words, everything above might be true, but bears no relevence.just like not having a way to rebutt someone's argument, and calling him "Ugly" instead.

sorry KMA, no jab at you here.i know you've been looking for it.

there is no useless knowledge, there is only knowledge we don't know how to use

teal'c wrote:Jesus maybe Hitch should be ombudsman he seems to be the only one with brains around here

GhostyGoo wrote:Capitalism is responsible for the death of humanity through a complete and utter destruction of ethical conduct, you DO know this, right?
Thanks to capitalism, when your doctor tells you you require a kidney transplant to survive, you no longer can be certain if you actually need a kidney transplant or your doctor simply needs a new speedboat. Nice.

teal'c wrote:Jesus maybe Hitch should be ombudsman he seems to be the only one with brains around here

GhostyGoo wrote:Capitalism is responsible for the death of humanity through a complete and utter destruction of ethical conduct, you DO know this, right?
Thanks to capitalism, when your doctor tells you you require a kidney transplant to survive, you no longer can be certain if you actually need a kidney transplant or your doctor simply needs a new speedboat. Nice.

Hitchkok wrote:just like not having a way to rebutt someone's argument, and calling him "Ugly" instead.

.

That's called an ad hominem,

I think you knew that, so i don't know why you are using it as an example for a completely different logical fallacy.

Whatever... i like your "fools wager" idea, Why don't we make a website and make some real money from that idea.

ctually, an Ad hominem is a kind of a genetic fallacy.

not really because genetic fallacy involves "tense"; the past kind.

If i said your argument was invalid because your mother was a **Filtered**. You could make the argument is was both but i dont think genetic fallacy is a broader category that incompases as hominems.

Its trivial anyway; and why i hate formal logic.

no, no no no.the genesis is the genesis of the argument.saying my argument is invalid because of my mother still falls under the Ad hominem sub-category.generally, any argument that claims an argument isn't valid because of it's origins (be it a person, a culture, a book etc.) without giving a relevent rebuttle as to the assumptions or the deductive process, is a genetic fallacy

there is no useless knowledge, there is only knowledge we don't know how to use

teal'c wrote:Jesus maybe Hitch should be ombudsman he seems to be the only one with brains around here

GhostyGoo wrote:Capitalism is responsible for the death of humanity through a complete and utter destruction of ethical conduct, you DO know this, right?
Thanks to capitalism, when your doctor tells you you require a kidney transplant to survive, you no longer can be certain if you actually need a kidney transplant or your doctor simply needs a new speedboat. Nice.

Hitchkok wrote:just like not having a way to rebutt someone's argument, and calling him "Ugly" instead.

.

That's called an ad hominem,

I think you knew that, so i don't know why you are using it as an example for a completely different logical fallacy.

Whatever... i like your "fools wager" idea, Why don't we make a website and make some real money from that idea.

ctually, an Ad hominem is a kind of a genetic fallacy.

not really because genetic fallacy involves "tense"; the past kind.

If i said your argument was invalid because your mother was a **Filtered**. You could make the argument is was both but i dont think genetic fallacy is a broader category that incompases as hominems.

Its trivial anyway; and why i hate formal logic.

no, no no no.the genesis is the genesis of the argument.saying my argument is invalid because of my mother still falls under the Ad hominem sub-category.generally, any argument that claims an argument isn't valid because of it's origins (be it a person, a culture, a book etc.) without giving a relevent rebuttle as to the assumptions or the deductive process, is a genetic fallacy

that still dowsn't answer the question as to why one encompasses the other. I think they are sperate logical errors of different criteria that can be used in concert.

"Your argument is dumb because your an idiot" I'm not saying your premise was idiotic, or based on idiotic ideas. I'm just calling the person an idiot.

Does the person count as an origin all the time?

genetic fallacy adresses the premise and evidence presented. I beleive.

Hitchkok wrote:just like not having a way to rebutt someone's argument, and calling him "Ugly" instead.

.

That's called an ad hominem,

I think you knew that, so i don't know why you are using it as an example for a completely different logical fallacy.

Whatever... i like your "fools wager" idea, Why don't we make a website and make some real money from that idea.

ctually, an Ad hominem is a kind of a genetic fallacy.

not really because genetic fallacy involves "tense"; the past kind.

If i said your argument was invalid because your mother was a **Filtered**. You could make the argument is was both but i dont think genetic fallacy is a broader category that incompases as hominems.

Its trivial anyway; and why i hate formal logic.

no, no no no.the genesis is the genesis of the argument.saying my argument is invalid because of my mother still falls under the Ad hominem sub-category.generally, any argument that claims an argument isn't valid because of it's origins (be it a person, a culture, a book etc.) without giving a relevent rebuttle as to the assumptions or the deductive process, is a genetic fallacy

that still dowsn't answer the question as to why one encompasses the other. I think they are sperate logical errors of different criteria that can be used in concert.

"Your argument is dumb because your an idiot" I'm not saying your premise was idiotic, or based on idiotic ideas. I'm just calling the person an idiot.

Does the person count as an origin all the time?

genetic fallacy adresses the premise and evidence presented. I beleive.

it doesn't have to. it actually rarely does. it is the claim that the origin (or genesis) of an argument has a relevence as to its validity. as a person making an argument is the origin of the argument, claiming an argument to be wrong solely based on the person making it, is a genetic fallacy. specifically, an Ad hominem.the person making the argument always counts as an origin, but there may be other origins. i can repeat an argument while citing a reference. you can then choose to attack either me or the reference. as long as you do one or the other (or both) without giving a relevent rebuttle as to either the premise(s) or the deductive procces, you're commiting a genetic fallacy

here's what this says:the "genetic fallacy," in which the origin or the cause of a proposition is taken to have some bearing on its truth. It doesn't. The fallacy can take two common forms that are of interest: an ad hominem ("against the man") argument holds something to be false because of where it comes from; and an argument "from authority" (ab auctoritate) holds something to be true because of where it comes from.(and, what fallacy have i commited here?)

there is no useless knowledge, there is only knowledge we don't know how to use

teal'c wrote:Jesus maybe Hitch should be ombudsman he seems to be the only one with brains around here

GhostyGoo wrote:Capitalism is responsible for the death of humanity through a complete and utter destruction of ethical conduct, you DO know this, right?
Thanks to capitalism, when your doctor tells you you require a kidney transplant to survive, you no longer can be certain if you actually need a kidney transplant or your doctor simply needs a new speedboat. Nice.

teal'c wrote:Jesus maybe Hitch should be ombudsman he seems to be the only one with brains around here

GhostyGoo wrote:Capitalism is responsible for the death of humanity through a complete and utter destruction of ethical conduct, you DO know this, right?
Thanks to capitalism, when your doctor tells you you require a kidney transplant to survive, you no longer can be certain if you actually need a kidney transplant or your doctor simply needs a new speedboat. Nice.

also..... i'm still wiating for your reply to the israel/palestine thread.....

oh, that?well, i haven't given up on that thread per-se, i've just given up on the participants.i've went through a short George III routine.the local trees proved to be a somewhat more shrewd bunch than you lot (admittedly, the Phoenix dactylifera tended to be somewhat long winded, and the Ficus carica tended to be simplistic, but the Olea europaea tended to have solid reasoning. and anyway, all three's arguments were, well, deeply rooted in reality). they actually even maneged to come up with some interesting arguments (you know, the kind with facts as premises and at least some logic behind them).oh, i have to go. it seems the Punica granatum (which is technically a shrub, but we don't practice ordericism around here) thought up some new ideas.talk to you later.

there is no useless knowledge, there is only knowledge we don't know how to use

teal'c wrote:Jesus maybe Hitch should be ombudsman he seems to be the only one with brains around here

GhostyGoo wrote:Capitalism is responsible for the death of humanity through a complete and utter destruction of ethical conduct, you DO know this, right?
Thanks to capitalism, when your doctor tells you you require a kidney transplant to survive, you no longer can be certain if you actually need a kidney transplant or your doctor simply needs a new speedboat. Nice.

also..... i'm still wiating for your reply to the israel/palestine thread.....

oh, that?well, i haven't given up on that thread per-se, i've just given up on the participants.i've went through a short George III routine.the local trees proved to be a somewhat more shrewd bunch than you lot (admittedly, the Phoenix dactylifera tended to be somewhat long winded, and the Ficus carica tended to be simplistic, but the Olea europaea tended to have solid reasoning. and anyway, all three's arguments were, well, deeply rooted in reality). they actually even maneged to come up with some interesting arguments (you know, the kind with facts as premises and at least some logic behind them).oh, i have to go. it seems the Punica granatum (which is technically a shrub, but we don't practice ordericism around here) thought up some new ideas.talk to you later.